Fixed Income

Special Report

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.

Special Report

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.

Dear Clients, Please note there was an error in the Recommend Asset Allocation table published on November 1, 2017. This has now been amended. We apologize for the confusion and any inconvenience it may have caused. Best Regards, Garry Evans Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation Reflation Trade Returns Recommended Allocation The market mood has shifted remarkably quickly over the past couple of months. The probability of a December Fed rate hike has moved up from 20% in early September to close to 100%, pushing the 10-year Treasury bond yield from 2.0% to 2.4% and causing the trade-weighted U.S. dollar to appreciate by 2%, and Emerging Market equities to underperform. We expect this trend to continue. Global growth continues to surprise to the upside (Chart 1). The softness in U.S. inflation this year is likely to reverse over coming quarters - an argument supported by the New York Fed's new Underlying Inflation Gauge, which indicates that sustained movements in inflation continue to trend higher (Chart 2). This makes it likely that the Fed will move ahead with its forecast three rate hikes in 2018, which the market has not yet priced in (Chart 3) - the implied probability of this is only 10%. Consequently, rates have further to rise: our fair value for the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield currently is 2.7%. And the increasing gap between U.S. and euro zone interest rates suggests that the dollar can appreciate further (Chart 4). All this supports our view that risk assets (equities and corporate credit) should outperform over the next 12 months, with developed government bonds producing a negative return, and emerging markets lagging because of rising rates and the stronger dollar (and a possible slowdown in China, as it focuses on reforming its economy and cleaning up the debt situation). Chart 1Growth Surprising To The Upside Chart 2Underlying Inflation Still Trending Up Chart 3Market Expects Fed To Move Only Slowly Chart 4Rate Gap Suggests Dollar Appreciation The key question, though, is how long this positive scenario can continue. With stock market valuations expensive (Chart 5) and investors fully invested, though not yet euphoric (Chart 6), we are clearly in late cycle. Rising rates could put a dampener on growth. Chart 5 Equities Close To Extremely Overvalued Chart 6Investors Are Fully Invested, But Cautious We find the Fed policy cycle a useful tool for thinking about probable investment returns from different assets (Chart 7). The best quadrant for risk assets is when the Fed is easing and policy is easy (with the Fed Funds Rate below the neutral rate). Currently we are in the bottom-right quadrant (Fed tightening, but not yet in the tight zone), which also has produced attractive returns for equities and credit. But once the Fed Funds Rate (FFR) moves above the neutral rate, returns from risk assets are on average poor and, historically, recession often followed quite quickly. How much longer do we have before Fed policy moves into the top-right quadrant? The Fed's own estimate of the neutral rate, in real terms, is 0.3%. The current real FFR (using core PCE inflation, 1.3%, as the deflator) is -0.17 (Chart 8). This implies that it will take only two further Fed hikes to move into the tight zone, which could happen as soon as March. This is why the outlook for inflation is critical. If, as the Fed forecasts and we also expect, core PCE inflation rises to 2%, it will be another five hikes before policy turns tight - we are unlikely to get there until early 2019. Chart 7The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 8How Far From The Tight Zone? For now, therefore, we continue to recommend an overweight on risk assets and pro-cyclical portfolio tilts. Global monetary policy remains easy and we see no indicators that suggest growth is slowing or that the risk of recession over the next 12 months is rising. The risks to this optimistic scenario (a hawkish Fed, over-eager structural reform in China, provocation from North Korea) seem limited. But we also continue to warn of the possibility of a recession in 2019 or 2020 caused, as so often, by excessive Fed tightening. We see, therefore, the possibility of our turning more defensive somewhere in mid-2018. Equities: We prefer developed over emerging market equities. Rising interest rates and an appreciating dollar will be headwinds for EM. Moreover, Xi Jinping's speech at the Communist Party Congress hinted at supply side structural reforms, overcapacity reduction, and deleveraging efforts. A renewed reform effort could dampen Chinese growth somewhat which, as in 2013-15, would negatively impact EM equities (Chart 9). Within DM, we are overweight euro zone and Japanese equities, which are higher beta, have stronger earnings momentum, and benefit from looser monetary policy. Fixed Income: We expect bonds to underperform over coming quarters, as U.S. inflation picks up and the Fed moves raises rates in line with its "dots". Corporate credit still has some attractions, provided the economic expansion continues. U.S. sub-investment grade bonds, in particular, have an attractive default-adjusted yield, as long as a strong economy keeps the default rate over the next 12 months to the historically low 2% our model suggests (Chart 10). The pick-up in inflation we expect would mean inflation-linked bonds outperform nominal bonds. Chart 9Slowing China Would Hurt EM Equities Chart 10Junk Attractive If Defaults Stay This Low Currencies: The ECB delivered a dovish tapering last month, extending its asset purchases until at least September 2018 and emphasizing that its current low interest rates will continue "well past the horizon of our net asset purchases". Given this, and the gap between U.S. and euro zone interest rates (Chart 4), we expect moderate further euro weakness over coming months. The dollar is likely to appreciate even more against the yen. There are the first tentative signs of inflation emerging in Japan (Chart 11) which, combined with the Bank of Japan sticking to its 0% 10-year JGB target and rising global interest rates, could push the yen to 120 against the dollar over coming months. Commodities: BCA's energy strategists recently revised up their crude oil forecasts on the back of strong demand, a likely extension of the OPEC agreement until at least end-2018, and possible supply disruptions in Iraq, Venezuela and other troubled regions.1 They see inventories continuing to draw down until at least 2H 2018 (Chart 12). Accordingly, they forecast $65 a barrel for Brent and $63 for WTI and flag upside risk to those projections. The outlook for industrial and precious metals, however, is less positive. A stronger dollar and a shift in the growth drivers in China will depress prices for base metals. Rising real interest rates will hurt gold, although we still like precious metals as a long-term hedge. Chart 11First Signs Of Inflation In Japan? Chart 12Oil Inventory Drawdowns Support Higher Price Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Oil Forecast Lifted As Market Tightens," dated 19 October 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Duration: Treasury yields likely have another 50-60 basis points of upside during this cycle, and at least for now their uptrend should not be constrained by unreasonably elevated economic expectations. Stay at below-benchmark duration. Economy & Inflation: GDP growth remains firmly entrenched above levels necessary to ensure that the unemployment rate continues to fall and inflation is pressured higher. Weakness in residential investment presents a risk to the view that above-trend growth will persist, but leading housing indicators suggest it will bounce back in the coming quarters. Municipal Bonds: State & Local government net borrowing declined in the third quarter, but the improvement is already reflected in historically tight Muni / Treasury yield ratios. Remain underweight municipal bonds. Feature Chart 1Discounting An Inflation Rebound In last week's report we pointed out that a flat yield curve is incompatible with core inflation so far below the Fed's target and that the bond market is fast approaching a day of reckoning where either inflation will rise quickly enough to justify the Fed's rate hike expectations, or those expectations will be revised lower.1 Meantime, the Treasury curve has been bear-steepening since early September, and the 37 basis point increase in the 10-year yield has been driven both by higher real yields and a higher cost of inflation compensation (Chart 1). This suggests that the market is pricing-in a rebound in inflation rather than a capitulation from the Fed. Yesterday's PCE inflation report didn't do much to justify those expectations, coming in at only 1.33% year-over-year, not far above the 1.30% reading from August. However, we have previously noted mounting evidence that we are past the worst of the inflation downtrend.2 This raises the question of how much higher Treasury yields can rise, and this is the question we tackle in this week's report. Data Surprises & Playing The Odds Longer run, the 10-year cost of inflation compensation (currently 1.88%) will likely settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to the Fed's 2% target. Assuming that inflationary pressures are sufficiently strong for that outcome to be achieved with the Fed lifting rates at a pace of about 50 bps per year, then long-dated real yields should stay roughly flat. This means that the nominal 10-year Treasury yield can move another 50-60 bps higher before the end of the cycle. But in the meantime, depending on swings in the macroeconomic data, bonds could experience several playable rallies and sell-offs. Is there a way for us to get a handle on when those might occur? One way might be to examine the economic surprise index (ESI). This index tracks whether economic data are over- or under-shooting consensus expectations. In this way it is very much like a financial market price. It moves higher when the incoming data suggest a rosier outlook than is currently anticipated, but then falls once expectations become so bullish they can no longer be surpassed. This is exactly what happened at the beginning of the year when the 10-year Treasury yield peaked at 2.62% following an extended period of elevated data surprises (Chart 2). Chart 2Economic Surprises Are Mean Reverting More specifically, we observe that when the ESI ends a month above (below) the zero line, it is very likely that the 10-year Treasury yield increased (decreased) during that month (Chart 3). The same is also true for 3-month and 6-month investment horizons, although the correlation is less robust, particularly for values close to zero (Charts 4 & 5). It follows that if we know whether the economic data will surprise on the upside or on the downside in a given month, then we can predict whether Treasury yields will rise or fall. Chart 3Economic Surprise Index & ##br##1-Month Change In Yields Chart 4Economic Surprise Index & ##br##3-Month Change In Yields Chart 5Economic Surprise Index & ##br##6-Month Change In Yields Unfortunately that is not a very profound statement. It is similarly easy to decide how much to bet on a hand of blackjack if you already know what cards will be dealt. But while it is obviously impossible to predict whether data surprises will be positive or negative in a given month, much like a card counter in blackjack, a study of events that have just occurred can help us make inferences that tilt the odds in our favor. In other words, we know that the ESI is mean reverting. A long sequence of elevated readings means it is more likely to fall, and a long sequence of depressed readings means it is more likely to rise. We can even use an AR(3) model to quantify the extent of mean reversion in the index. Using monthly data we run a regression of the ESI on its three most recent lags and get the following result which explains 55% of the variation since 2003: Notice that the index is positively correlated to its reading from the prior month, but negatively correlated with its readings from two and three months ago. Let's now consider that the most recent reading from the ESI is 38.2. One month ago it was -7.9 and two months ago it was -23.1. Using our formula, our best prediction for where the surprise index will be next month is 39. This is still deep in positive territory, meaning that if the model is correct, Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure. More decisively, we conclude from our model that it is unlikely that investor expectations have become so elevated that markets are set up for disappointment. The Appendix to this report provides a reference table for different ranges of the surprise index based on the above formula. It can be used as a quick reference guide for predicting where the ESI is likely to fall next month based on its readings from the prior three months. Bottom Line: Treasury yields likely have another 50-60 basis points of upside during this cycle, and at least for now their uptrend should not be constrained by unreasonably elevated economic expectations. Stay at below-benchmark duration. Economy & Inflation No Signs Of A Slowdown Last week we learned that GDP grew at an annualized rate of 3.0% in the third quarter, well above the Fed's 1.8% estimate of trend. The number was boosted by strong contributions from inventory accumulation (+0.73%) and net exports (+0.41%), but even stripping out those more volatile components to focus on real final sales to domestic purchasers reveals that growth is firmly above trend (Chart 6). Above-trend GDP growth will ensure that the unemployment rate continues to decline, which in turn will ensure that inflation moves higher. The unemployment rate had come close to flattening off late last year as growth decelerated toward 1.8%, but has since started to fall more rapidly alongside the re-acceleration in GDP (Chart 6, bottom panel). In fact, we attribute this year's decline in inflation to last year's growth deceleration and expect inflation will soon follow GDP growth higher (Chart 7). Chart 6Growth Is Steady, And Well Above Trend Chart 7Inflation Lags Growth Considering the contributions from the more stable sources of growth, we observe the following (Chart 8): Consumer spending remains firm, still above its post-2010 average. Nonresidential investment is accelerating back toward its post-2010 average, following a period of weakness that was driven by the mid-2014 commodity price collapse. Leading capex indicators, such as new orders surveys, suggest the acceleration will continue. Residential investment is a source of concern. It had already decelerated to well below its post-2010 average even prior to the hurricanes that depressed its contribution to growth in Q3. We are not yet concerned that the weakness in residential investment will morph into a broader slowdown. In fact, it appears quite likely that residential investment will bounce back in the coming quarters. Growth in residential investment is correlated with changes in the inventory of outstanding homes (Chart 9). Typically, large slowdowns in residential investment are preceded by a big run-up in supply. But at the moment, supply continues to contract, whether or not we include the shadow inventory from properties that were foreclosed upon during the housing bust. This shadow inventory has mostly evaporated in any case (Chart 9, panel 3). Chart 8Housing Not Keeping Pace Chart 9Inventories Still Falling Further support for residential investment comes from homebuilder sentiment which remains very strong (Chart 9, bottom panel). Bottom Line: GDP growth remains firmly entrenched above levels necessary to ensure that the unemployment rate continues to fall and inflation is pressured higher. Weakness in residential investment presents a risk to the view that above-trend growth will persist, but leading housing indicators suggest it will bounce back in the coming quarters. An Improvement In State & Local Government Balance Sheets Assuming that corporate tax revenues were the same in Q3 as in Q2, we can estimate that state & local government net borrowing declined to $163 billion in the third quarter. This represents a substantial improvement from prior quarters, but one that has already been discounted in Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratios (Chart 10). M/T yield ratios are extremely tight, even compared to average pre-crisis levels (Chart 11), and the unattractive valuation underscores our negative stance on the sector. However, at least for now, there are no signs of an imminent surge in state & local government net borrowing that could cause a credit premium to get priced into muni yields. Chart 10Less Borrowing Is In The Price Chart 11Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Until last quarter, growth in state & local current expenditures had been running consistently above growth in current revenues (Chart 12). However, the weakness in current revenues was mostly attributable to a slowdown in transfers from the federal government. When we look at growth in state & local government tax revenues only, we find that it is substantially outpacing expenditure growth (Chart 12, panel 2). Chart 12Tax Revenue Growth Greater Than Expenditure Growth The acceleration in transfers from the federal government that started in mid-2014 reflected the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Now that most eligible individuals have signed up, we would expect growth in federal transfer payments to level-off. Unless legislation is passed to further curb transfers from the federal government, state & local borrowing should continue its decline in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: State & Local government net borrowing declined in the third quarter, but the improvement is already reflected in historically tight Muni / Treasury yield ratios. Remain underweight municipal bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Must Fall Behind The Curve", dated October 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade", dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Risk assets are responding well to better data and rising rates. Q3 EPS results beating lowered expectations, but growth earnings will peak soon. The conditions are in place for robust capital spending. Financial assets are adhering to the post-Hurricane playbook, with a few notable exceptions. Feature Chart 1Risk Assets Higher Despite Higher Rates Risk assets rose last week for the 6th week in a row (Chart 1). A solid start to Q3 earnings season, more legislative progress on the GOP's tax plan and a narrowing of President Trump's choice for Fed Chair (Jerome Powell, John Taylor and incumbent Janet Yellen) all added to the positive backdrop. The 4 bps rise in the 10 year Treasury yield last week (and 37 bps since early September) was not an impediment to higher equity and oil prices, and gains for small caps and high yield bonds. The positive reaction likely reflected the fact that yields rose more because of increased growth expectations than higher inflation expectations. Despite the impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, Q3 GDP posted an impressive 3% gain. The composition of the Q3 readings suggests an even stronger report in Q4 (Chart 2). At 2.3%, the year-over-year change in real GDP is close to the Fed's 2017 forecast (2.4%) and above the long run forecast (1.8%). The implication for investors is that because U.S. economic growth is faster than its long-term potential, the labor market is tightening and inflation is poised to move higher. Accordingly, market odds for a Fed hike in December are near 90% and participants expect 51 bps more hikes in the next 12 months (Chart 1, panel 3). BCA's view is that U.S. economic growth is set to accelerate in the coming quarters aided by a post hurricane rebound in housing. The Fed will raise rates in December and three more times next year as inflation returns to 2% and perhaps beyond. Corporate profit growth will peak in the next few quarters, but remain supportive of higher stock prices for now. The rise in the Economic Surprise Index will continue for another few months, and provide another lift for risk assets. A surge in capital spending adds to the upbeat tone. Chart 2GDP Growth Remains Below Average, But Above Fed's Long Run Target Capital Spending Blasts Off Business capital spending is on the upswing. The robust readings in September on core durable goods orders (7.8% year-over-year) and shipments reported last week were paybacks for the Hurricane-weakened August report. Nonetheless, the impressive soundings on the three -month change in both orders and shipments were not distorted by the storms. Moreover, the durable goods report was one of the latest in a series of data points brightening capex's outlook (Chart 3). Both BCA's real and nominal capex models, driven by surging capital goods orders along with elevated ISM readings and soaring sentiment on business spending, indicate strong investment in plant and equipment in the next few quarters. CEO confidence soared to a 13-year high in Q1 according to the latest Duke University/CFO Magazine Business Outlook, but retreated modestly in Q2 and Q3 (Chart 4). Surveys by the Conference Board and Business Roundtable show a similar pattern. Notably, readings on all three surveys have climbed since Trump's election in November 2016, but then retreated as his pro-business agenda stalled. The drop in sentiment reflects the lack of legislative progress in Washington (Chart 5). The dip in CEO sentiment in Q2 and Q3 is in sharp contrast with the easing of policy concerns in the Beige Book. Chart 3Bright Outlook For Capital Spending Chart 4Capital Spending Plans Upbeat Chart 5Managements Remain Upbeat The upbeat numbers in the regional Federal Reserve Banks' surveys of capital spending intentions further support rising capex spending in the next few quarters. The average readings from the New York, Philadelphia and Richmond Feds' capex survey plans are close to cycle highs, despite a modest pullback in the summer months. Moreover, the regional Feds' capex spending plans diffusion index hit an eight-year high in October (Chart 5, panel 3). Bottom Line: Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, and underweight duration. Rising capex will drive up GDP, employment and EPS in the coming quarters. Q3 Earnings Beating Lowered Expectations The Q3 earnings reporting season is off to a strong start, with both EPS and sales growth well ahead of consensus expectations as we forecast in our October 2 preview. Moreover, the counter-trend rally in profit margins is still in place. Just under 55% of companies have reported results so far, with 74% beating consensus EPS projections just above the long-term average of 55%. Furthermore, 67% have posted Q3 revenues that topped expectations, which exceeded the LT average of 69%. The surprise factor for Q3 stands at 5% for EPS and 2% for sales. These compare favorably with the average EPS (4.2%) and sales (1.2%) in the past five years. We anticipate the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, initial results imply that Q2 will be another quarter of margin expansion. Average earnings growth (Q3 2017 versus Q3 2016) is solid at 7% with revenue growth at 5%. Strength in earnings and revenues is broad based (Table 1). Earnings per share increased in Q3 2017 versus Q3 2016 in eight of the 11 sectors. The 7.3% year-over-year drop in the financial sector is linked to the impact of the hurricanes on the insurance and reinsurance industries. Excluding those industries, financial EPS is up 4.7% from a year ago. EPS results are particularly stout in energy (164%), technology (18%) and healthcare (7%). Those sectors likewise experienced significant sales gains (16%, 9% and 5% respectively). Corporate managements are more focused on the message in Washington than on the President (Chart 6). Trump's name was mentioned just once in the Q3 earnings calls held through October 27, matching Q2's reporting period. CEOs and CFOs have cited Trump's name at least once in each earnings season since Q2 2016. The peak in mentions occurred immediately after Trump took office in early 2017. Table 1S&P 500:##BR##Q3 2017 Results* Chart 6Managements Focused On##BR##The Message Out Of DC In contrast, the words "tax" and "reform" have appeared 39 times thus far in Q3 conference calls, most often in a positive light. There were only five mentions in Q2, when there was skepticism that a tax plan would pass this year. In the Q4 2016 reporting season following the November election, tax and reform were cited 16 times. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has consistently expected a tax package to pass by the end of Q1 2018.1 We are encouraged by the upward trajectory of EPS estimates for 2017 and 2018 (Chart 7). It is odd that the recent downtick in 2017 EPS is mirrored by an uptick in the 2018 figure. That said, the divergence can be explained by the impact of the hurricanes on the financial sector's earnings in 2017 and probable snapback in early 2018. Analysts expect 2019 EPS growth to slow from 2018's clip, which matches BCA's view. However, unlike estimates for 2017 and 2018, we anticipate that EPS estimates for 2019 will move lower throughout 2018 and 2019, ahead of a recession in late 2019.2 Bottom Line: The BCA earnings model shows that S&P 500 EPS growth is peaking and should decelerate through 2018 toward a level commensurate with 3 ½-4% nominal GDP growth (Chart 8). Accordingly, BCA believes that the earnings backdrop will remain a tailwind for the equity market, albeit a smaller tailwind. This forecast excludes any positive effect on growth from tax cuts, which would be positive for EPS and the S&P 500 price index in the short term, although this would also bring forward Fed rate hikes. The entire Treasury curve has readjusted to reflect this view. Chart 7Stability In '17 & '18 EPS Estimates,##BR##But '19 Likely To Move Lower Chart 8Strong EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon 10-Year Treasury Update BCA's view is that the 10-year Treasury yield will head higher in the coming months. However, is the move from 2.03% in early September to 2.43% last week sustainable? BCA's fair value model for the 10-year Treasury yield (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value at 2.65% (Chart 9, panel 1). Moreover, BCA's three-factor version of the model (that includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index), puts fair value slightly higher at 2.63% (Chart 9, panel 3). Investors should continue to position for a steeper curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Chart 9Treasury Fair Value Models BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service will publish updated fair models after the November 1 release of October's global PMI data. The latest readings on Citi's Economic Surprise index also support BCA's stance on rates. How Long Can The Economic Surprise Index Stay Positive? The Citi Economic Surprise Index crossed into positive territory on October 2nd, remaining above zero for 20 business days, and risk assets are responding (Chart 10). Since 2010, once the Index turns positive, it continues to rise for 46 days. The implication for investors is that the economic data will continue to be remarkable for another two months. Table 2 shows that risk assets outperform as the economic surprise index rises from zero toward its zenith. Risk assets have also outperformed since the June bottom in economic surprises, matching the historical performance.3 Oil (+17%), small caps and investment grade corporates are all standouts and the gains may not be over. The track record of risk assets as the Economic Surprise Index climbs suggests that additional increases are in prospect for risk assets. On average, equities (relative to treasuries) and oil are the best performers during these intervals. Chart 10May Still Be Room To Run On Economic Surprise Table 2Risk Assets Perform Well As Economic Surprise Rises Post-Hurricane Macro Backdrop The strength of the Citi Economic Surprise Index following the hurricanes duplicates the historical trend and supports the rise in risk assets. The Index moves higher for the first month post-storm, and then remains above zero for an additional three weeks (Chart 11, panel 4). This bolsters BCA's stance that the direction of the Index will continue to lift risk assets in the next few months. Financial assets are also adhering to the post-Hurricane playbook,4 with a few notable exceptions (Chart 12). The stock-to-bond ratio moved higher and the VIX has declined since Hurricane Harvey, matching the typical post-storm performance. However, the 10-year Treasury yield, the S&P 500 and the Fed funds rate, all have bucked historical trends. The S&P 500 rose by 5.6% since late August; stocks typically drift lower in the first few months after a major storm. In addition, the 10-year Treasury yield climbed but it usually moves down in the two months following a hurricane. Post- storm, the Fed typically continues to do whatever it was doing prior to the storm. Accordingly, we expect the Fed to hike rates at its December meeting. Chart 11Major Hurricane Impact##BR##On Activity Data Chart 12Major Hurricane Impact On##BR##Financial Markets And The Fed The economic, inflation and sentiment data are also mixed. Housing data frequently lags in the wake of a storm, but both new and existing home sales moved up in the month after Harvey and Irma; housing starts declined in recent months which is counter to the historical pattern (Chart 13). Both IP and employment plunged after the storms, however, these indicators tend to rise after major weather. Initial claims for unemployment insurance were typically volatile in the six weeks since Harvey hit Texas, but have resumed their downtrend. Average hourly earnings in inflation climbed after Harvey and Irma, while consumer confidence dipped, matching history. However, the bump in gasoline prices since late August runs counter to historical precedent. Gasoline prices tend to decline after major storms (Chart 14). Chart 13Major Hurricane Impact##BR##On Housing Data Chart 14Major Hurricane Impact On##BR##Sentiment And Inflation Data Investment Conclusions: The macro backdrop remains bullish for risk assets, especially since synchronized growth has reduced fears of secular stagnation. Bond yields will rise, but won't be a headwind for stocks yet.5 Rising bond yields because of growth, without rising inflation, are bullish for risk assets, but this will change as inflation reaches 2% and inflation expectations start to rise. At that point, the Fed will be behind the curve. This will lead to faster Fed rate hikes, historically a headwind for equities. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," October 25, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2017: Goldilocks And The Recession Bear," October 4, 2017. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration," April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Shelter From The Storm," September 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Still In The Sweet Spot" June 19, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The macro environment remains positive for risk assets. Nonetheless, the shadow of the '87 stock market crash is a reminder that major market corrections can occur even when the earnings and economic growth backdrop is upbeat. Our base case remains that global growth will stay reasonably firm in 2018, although the composition of that growth will shift towards the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects of easier financial conditions and the likelihood of some fiscal stimulus next year. Positive U.S. economic growth surprises and the disappearing output gap will allow the Fed to raise rates more than is discounted by the markets, providing a lift to the dollar and widening U.S. yield spreads relative to its trading partners. The momentum in profit growth, however, will favor Japan relative to the U.S. and Europe. Investors should overweight Japanese equities and hedge the currency risk. There is still more upside for oil prices, but we are not playing the rally in base metals. The Chinese economy is performing well at the moment, but ample base metal supply and a rising dollar argue against a substantial price rise from current levels. Emerging market equities should underperform the developed markets due to a rising U.S. dollar and the largely sideways path for base metals. Our macro and profit views are consistent with cyclicals outperforming defensive stocks. Investors should also continue to bet on higher inflation expectations and be overweight corporate bonds (relative to governments). High-yield relative value is decent after accounting for the favorable default outlook. It is too early to fully retreat from risk assets and prepare for the next recession. Nonetheless, the market has entered a late cycle phase. Investors appear to have shed fears of secular stagnation, and have embraced a return to a lackluster-growth version of the Great Moderation. The risk of disappointment is therefore elevated. Low levels of market correlation and implied volatility can perhaps be justified, but only if there are no financial accidents on the horizon and any rise in inflation is gradual enough to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Investors with less tolerance for risk should maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons and provide dry powder to boost exposure after the correction. Feature The October anniversary of the '87 stock market crash was a reminder to investors that major market corrections can arrive out of the blue. With hindsight, there were some warning signs evident before the crash. Nonetheless, the speed and viciousness of the correction caught the vast majority of investors by surprise, in large part because the economy was performing well (outside of some yawning imbalances such as the U.S. current account deficit). Many worried that the 20% drop in the S&P 500 would trigger a recession, but the economy did not skip a beat and it was not long before the equity market recouped the losses. We view the '87 crash as a correction rather than a bear market. BCA's definition of a bear market is a combination of magnitude (at least a 15% decline) and duration (lasting at least for six months). Bear markets are usually associated with economic recessions. Corrections tend to be short-lived because they are not associated with an economic downturn. None of our forward-looking indicators suggest that a recession is in the cards in the near term for any of the major economies. Even the risk of a financial accident or economic pothole in China has diminished in our view. As discussed below, the global economy is firing on almost all cylinders. Chart I-1Valuation Today Is Very Stretched Vs. 1987 Nonetheless, there are some parallels today with the mid-1980s. A Special Report sent to all BCA clients in October provides a retrospective on the '87 crash.1 One concern is that the proliferation of financial computer algorithms and derivatives is a parallel to the popularity of portfolio insurance in the 1980s, which was blamed for turbocharging the selling pressure when the market downturn gathered pace in October. My colleague Doug Peta downplays the risks inherent in the ETF market in the Special Report, but argues that automatic selling will again reinforce the fall in prices once it starts. It is also worrying that equity valuation is much more stretched than was the case in the summer of 1987 based on the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE, Chart I-1). The CAPE is currently at levels only previously reached ahead of the 1929 and 2000 peaks. In contrast, the CAPE was close to its long-term average in 1987. Quantitative easing and extremely low interest rates have pulled forward much of the bond and stock markets' future returns. It has also contributed to today's extremely low readings on implied volatility. The fact that the Fed is slowly taking away the punchbowl and that the ECB is dialing back its asset purchase program only add to the risk of a sharp correction. The Good News For now though, investors are focusing on the improving global growth backdrop and the still-solid earnings picture. While the S&P 500 again made new highs in October, it was the Nikkei that stole the show among the major countries. Impressively, the surge in the Japanese stock market was not on the back of a significantly weaker yen. As we highlighted last month, risk assets are being supported by the three legged stool of robust earnings growth, low volatility and yield levels in government bonds, and the view that inflation will remain quiescent for the foreseeable future. The fact that the global growth impulse is broadly-based is icing on the cake because it reduces lingering fears of secular stagnation. Even emerging economies have joined the growth party, while a weak U.S. dollar has tempered fears of a financial accident in this space. Our forward-looking growth indicators are upbeat (Chart I-2). Our demand indicators in the major economies remain quite bullish, especially for capital spending (not shown). Animal spirits are beginning to stir. Moreover, financial conditions remain growth-friendly, especially in the U.S., and subdued inflation is allowing central banks to proceed cautiously for those that are tightening or tapering. The global PMI broke to a new high in October, and the economic surprise index for the major economies has surged in recent months. Our global LEI remains in a strong uptrend and its diffusion index shifted back into positive territory, having experiencing a worrisome dip into negative territory earlier this year. We expect the global growth upturn will persist for at least the next year. The U.S. will be the first major economy to enter the next recession, although this should not occur until 2019. It is thus too early to expect the equity market to begin to anticipate the associated downturn in profit growth. Earnings: Japan A Star Performer It is still early days in the Q3 earnings season, but the mini cyclical rebound from the 2015/16 profit recession in the major economies is still playing out. The bright spots at the global level outside of energy are industrials, materials, technology and consumer staples (Chart I-3). All four are benefitting from strengthening top line growth and rising operating margins. Chart I-2Upbeat Global Economic Indicators Chart I-3Global Earnings By Sector The U.S. is further advanced in the mini-cycle and EPS growth is near its peak on a 4-quarter moving total basis. The expected topping out in profit growth is more a reflection of challenging year-on-year comparisons than a deterioration in the underlying fundamentals. The hurricanes will take a bite out of third quarter earnings, but this effect will be temporary. Moreover, oil prices are turbocharging earnings in the energy patch and we expect this to continue. Our commodity strategists recently lifted their 2018 target price for both Brent and WTI to $65/bbl and $63/bbl, respectively. The global uptick in GDP growth, along with continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 are the principal drivers of our revised outlook. We expect the fortuitous combination of fundamentals to accelerate the drawdown in oil inventories globally, which also will be supportive for prices. While U.S. financials stocks have cheered the prospects that Congress may pass a tax bill sometime in early 2018, sell-side analysts have been brutally downgrading financial sector EPS estimates. This has dealt a blow to net earnings revisions in the sector. Expected hurricane-related losses are probably the main culprit, especially in the insurance sector. Nonetheless, our equity sector strategists argue that such indiscriminate downgrades are unwarranted, and we would lean against such pessimism.2 Recent profit results corroborate our positive sector bias, although we are still early in the earnings season. European profits will suffer to some extent in the third quarter due to the lagged effects of previous euro strength. The same will be true in the fourth quarter, although we expect this headwind to diminish early in 2018. That leaves Japan as the star profit performer among the majors in the near term. The recent surge in foreign flows into the Japanese market suggests that global investors are beginning to embrace the upbeat EPS story. Abe's election win in October means that the current monetary stance will remain in place. The ruling LDP's shift away from austerity (e.g. abandoning the primary balance target) may also be lifting growth expectations. A Return To The Great Moderation? Chart I-4Market Correlation And The ERP A lot of the good news is already discounted in equity prices. The depressed level of the VIX and the drop in risk asset correlations this year signal significant complacency. Large institutional investors are reportedly selling volatility and thus dampening vol across asset classes. But there is surely more to it. It appears that investors believe we have returned to the pre-Lehman period between 1995 and 2006 when the Great Moderation in macro volatility contributed to low correlations among stocks within the equity market (Chart I-4). The idea is that low perceived macroeconomic volatility during that period had diminished the dispersion of growth and inflation forecasts, thereby trimming the variance of interest rate projections. This allowed equity investors to focus on alpha rather than beta, given less uncertainty about the macro outlook. Of course, the Great Recession and financial market crisis brought the Great Moderation to a crashing end. Correlations rocketed up and investors demanded a higher equity risk premium to hold stocks. Today, dispersion in the outlooks for growth and interest rates have fallen back to pre-Lehman levels, helping to explain the low levels of implied volatility and correlation in the equity market (Chart I-5). Some of this can be justified by fundamentals. The onset of a broadly-based global expansion phase has likely calmed lingering fears that the global economy is constantly teetering on the edge of the abyss. Investor uncertainty regarding economic policy has moderated as well (bottom panel). Historically, implied volatility tended to fall during previous periods when global industrial production was strong and global earnings were rising across a broad swath of countries (Chart I-6). Our U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service points out that, during the later stages of the cycle, equity sector correlations tend to fall as earnings fundamentals become more important performance drivers and sector differentiation generates alpha, as the broad market enters the last stage of the bull market. Similarly, the VIX can fluctuate at low levels for an extended period when global growth is broadly based. Chart I-5A Less Uncertain Macro Outlook? Chart I-6Broad-Based Growth Lower Implied Volatility Still, current levels of equity market correlation and the VIX are unnerving given a plethora of potential geopolitical crises and the pending unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. Moreover, any meaningful pickup in inflation would upset the 'low vol' applecart. Table I-1 shows the drop in the S&P 500 index during non-recession periods when the VIX surges by more than 10% in a 13-week period. The equity price index fell by an average of 7% during the nine episodes, with a range of -3.6 to -18.1%. Table I-1Episodes When VIX Spiked The Equity Risk Premium Chart I-7Still Some Value In High-Yield On a positive note, the equity risk premium (ERP) is not overly depressed. There are many ways to define the ERP, but we present it as the 12-month forward earnings yield minus the 10-year Treasury yield in Chart I-4. It has fallen from about 760 basis points in 2011 to 310 basis points today. We do not believe that the ERP can return to the extremely low levels of 1990-2000. At best, the ERP may converge with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003-2007 (about 200 basis points). The current forward earnings yield is 550 basis points and the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.4%. The ERP would need to fall by 110 basis points to get back to the 2% equilibrium. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or higher bond yield. If the 10-year yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3% (our base case), then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 50 basis points. This would boost the forward earnings multiple from 18 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We are not betting on any further multiple expansion but the point is that stocks at least have some padding in the event that bond yields adjust higher in a gradual way. It is the same story for speculative-grade bonds, which are not as expensive as they seem on the surface. The average index OAS is currently 326 bps, only about 100 bps above its all-time low. However, junk value appears much more attractive once the low default rate is taken into account. Chart I-7 presents the ex-post default-adjusted spreads, along with our forecast based on unchanged spreads and our projection for net default losses over the next year. The spread padding offered by the high-yield sector is actually reasonably good by historical standards, assuming there is no recession over the next year. We are not banking on much spread tightening from here, which means that high-yield is largely a carry trade now. Nonetheless, given a forecast for the default and recovery rate, we expect U.S. high-yield excess returns to be in the range of 2% and 5% (annualized) over the next 6-12 months. The bottom line is that the positive growth backdrop does not rule out a correction in risk assets, especially given rich valuations. But at least the profit, default and growth figures will remain a tailwind in the near term. The main risk is a breakout in inflation, which financial markets are not priced for. Inflation And Hidden Slack The September CPI report did little to buttress the FOMC's view that this year's inflation pullback is temporary. The report disappointed expectations again with core CPI rising only 0.13% month-over-month. For context, an environment where inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target would be consistent with core CPI prints of 0.2% every month, roughly 2.4% annualized. The inflation debate continues to rage inside and outside the Fed as to whether the previous relationship between inflation and growth have permanently changed, whether low inflation simply reflects long lags, or whether it will require tighter labor markets in this business cycle to fuel wage and price pressures. We back the latter two of these three explanations but, admittedly, predicting exactly when inflation will pick up is extremely difficult and we must keep an open mind. A Special Report in the October IMF World Economic Outlook sheds some light on this vexing issue.3 Their work suggests that the deceleration in wage growth in the post-Lehman period in the OECD countries can largely be explained by traditional macro factors: weak productivity growth, lower inflation expectations and labor market slack. The disappointing productivity figures alone account for two-thirds of the drop in wage growth. However, a key point of the research is that the headline unemployment figures are not as good a measure of labor market slack as they once were. This is because declining unemployment rates partly reflect workers that have been forced into part-time jobs, referred to as involuntary part-time employment (IPT). The rise in IPT employment could be associated with automation, the growing importance of the service sector, and a diminished and more uncertain growth outlook that is keeping firms cautious. The IMF's statistical analysis suggests that the number of involuntary part-time workers as a share of total employment (IPT ratio) is an important measure of slack that adds information when explaining the decline in wage growth. Historically, each one percentage point rise in the IPT ratio trimmed wage growth by 0.3 percentage points. Chart I-8 and Chart I-9 compare the unemployment rate gap (unemployment rate less the full-employment estimate) with the deviation in the IPT ratio from its 2007 level. The fact that the IPT ratio has had an upward trend since 2000 in many countries makes it difficult to identify a level that is consistent with full employment. Nonetheless, the change in this ratio since 2007 provides a sense of how much "hidden slack" the Great Recession generated due to forced part-time employment. Chart I-8Measures Of Labor Market Slack (I) Chart I-9Measures Of Labor Market Slack (II) For the OECD as a whole, labor market slack has been fully absorbed based on the unemployment gap. However, the IPT ratio was still elevated at the end of 2016 (latest data available), helping to explain why wage growth has remained so depressed across most countries. The IPT ratio is still above its 2007 level in three-quarters of the OECD countries. Of course, there is dispersion across countries. Japan has no labor market slack by either measure. In the U.S., the unemployment gap has fallen into negative territory, but only about half of the post-2007 rise in the IPT ratio has been unwound. For the Eurozone, the U.K. and Canada, the unemployment gap is close to zero (or well into negative territory in the U.K.). Nonetheless, little of the under-employment problem in these economies has been absorbed based on the IPT ratio. Our discussion in last month's report highlighted the importance of the global output gap in driving inflation in individual countries. Consistent with this, the IMF finds that there have been important spillover effects related to labor market slack, especially since 2007. This means that wage growth can be held down even in countries where slack has disappeared because of the existence of a surplus of available labor in their trading partners. Phillips Curve Is Not Dead That said, we still believe that the U.S. is at a point in the cycle when inflationary pressures should begin to build, even in the face of persisting labor market slack at the global level. Chart I-10 shows the ECI and the Atlanta Fed wage tracker, which are the best measures of wages because they are less affected by composition effects. Both have moved higher along with measures of labor market tightness. Wage and consumer price inflation have ebbed this year, but when we step back and look at it over a longer timeframe, the Phillips curve still appears to be broadly operating. Moreover, inflation is a lagging indicator. Table I-2 splits the post-war U.S. business cycles into short, medium, and long buckets based on the length of the expansion phase. It presents the number of months from when full employment was reached to the turning point for consumer price inflation in each expansion. There was a wide variation in this lag in the short- and medium-length expansions, but the lags were short on average. Chart I-10Phillips Curve Still (Weakly) Operating Table I-2Inflation Reacts With A Lag It is a different story for long expansions, where the lag averaged more than two years. We have pointed out in the past that it takes longer for inflation pressures to reveal themselves when the economy approaches full employment gradually, in contrast to shorter expansions when momentum is so strong the demand crashes into supply constraints. The fact that U.S. unemployment rate has only been below the estimate of full employment for eight months in this expansion suggests that perhaps we and the Fed are just being too impatient in waiting for the inflection point. Turning to Europe, the IPT ratio confirms the ECB's view that there is an abundance of under-employment, despite the relatively low unemployment rate. This suggests that the Eurozone remains behind the U.S. in the economic cycle. As expected, the ECB announced a tapering in its asset purchase program to take place next year. While policymakers are backing away from QE in the face of healthy growth and a shrinking pool of bonds to purchase, they will continue to emphasize that rate hikes are a long way off in order to avoid a surge in the euro and an associated tightening in financial conditions. U.S./Eurozone bond yield spreads are still quite wide by historical standards and thus it is popular to bet on spread narrowing and a stronger euro/weaker dollar. However, some narrowing in short-term rate spreads is already discounted based on the OIS forward curve (Chart I-11). The real 5-year, 5-year forward OIS spread - the market's expectation of how much higher U.S. real 5-year rates will be in five years' time relative to the euro area - stands at about 70 basis points. This spread is not wide by historical standards, and thus has room to widen again if market expectations for the fed funds rate moves up toward the Fed's 'dot plot' over the next 6-12 months. While market pricing for the ECB policy rate path appears about right in our view, market expectations for rate hikes in the U.S. are too complacent. This implies that long-term spreads could widen in favor of the U.S. dollar over the coming months, especially if U.S. growth accelerates while euro area growth cools off a bit. The fact the U.S. economic surprise index has turned positive is early evidence that this process may have already begun. Moreover, the starting point is that the dollar has been weaker than interest rate differentials warrant, such that there is some room for the dollar to 'catch up', even if interest rate differentials do not move (Chart I-12). We see EUR/USD falling to 1.15 by the end of the year. Chart I-11Room For U.S./Eurozone Spreads To Widen... Chart I-12...Giving The Dollar A Lift A New Fed Chair? Our forecast for yield spreads and currencies is not overly affected by the choice of Fed Chair for next year. President Trump's meeting with academic John Taylor reportedly went well, but we think the President will prefer someone with a less hawkish bent. Keeping Chair Yellen is an option, but she has strong views on financial sector regulation that Trump does not like. The prevailing wisdom is that Jerome Powell is a moderate who is only slightly more hawkish than Yellen. But the truth is that we don't really know where he stands because he has no academic publication record and has generally steered clear of taking bold views on monetary policy. In any event, the organizational structure of the Fed makes it impossible for the chair to run roughshod over other FOMC members. This suggests that no matter who is selected, the general thrust of monetary policy will not change radically next year. As discussed above, uncertainty is elevated, but our base case sees inflation rising enough in the coming months for the Fed to maintain their 'dot plot' forecast. The market and the Fed are correct to 'look through' the near-term growth hit from the hurricanes, to the rebound that always follows the destruction. The U.S. housing sector is a little more worrying because some softness was evident even before the hurricanes hit. Since the early 1960s, a crest in housing led the broader economic downturn by an average of seven quarters. Nonetheless, we continue to expect that the housing soft patch does not represent a peak for this cycle. Residential investment should provide fuel to the economy for at least the next two years as pent up demand is worked off, related to depressed household formation since the 2008 financial crisis. Affordability will still be favorable even if mortgage rates were to rise by another 100 basis points (Chart I-13). Robust sentiment in the homebuilder sector in October confirms that the hurricane setback in housing starts is temporary. China And Base Metals Turning to China, economic momentum is on the upswing. Real-time measures of economic activity such as electricity production, excavator sales, and railway freight traffic are all growing at double-digit rates, albeit down from recent peak levels (Chart I-14). Various price indexes also reveal a fairly broadly-based inflation pickup to levels that will unnerve the authorities. Growth will likely slow in 2018 as policymakers continue to pare back stimulus. We do not foresee a substantial growth dip next year, but it could be hard on base metals prices. Chart I-13Housing Affordability Outlook Housing ##br##Affordability Under Various Rate Assumptions Chart I-14China: Healthy ##br##Growth Indicators Policy shifts discussed in Chinese President Xi's speech in October to the Party Congress are also negative for metals prices in the medium term. The speech provided a broad outline of goals to be followed by concrete policy initiatives at the National People's Congress (NPC) in March 2018. He emphasized that policy will tackle inequality, high debt levels, overcapacity and pollution. Globalization will also remain a priority of the government. The supply side reforms required to meet these goals will be positive in the long run, but negative for growth in the short run. Restructuring industry, deleveraging the financial sector and fighting smog will all have growth ramifications. The government could use fiscal stimulus to offset the short-term hit to growth. However, while overall growth may not slow much, the shift away from an investment-heavy, deeply polluting growth model, will undermine the demand for base metals. Our commodity strategists also highlight the supply backdrop for most base metals is not supportive of an extended rally in prices. The implication is that investors who are long base metals should treat it as a trade rather than a strategic position. Despite our expectation that policy will continue to tighten, we believe that investors should overweight Chinese stocks relative to other EM markets. Investment Conclusions: Our base case remains that global growth will stay reasonably firm in 2018, although the composition of that growth will shift towards the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects of the easing in U.S. financial conditions that has taken place this year and the likelihood of some fiscal stimulus next year. The U.S. Congress has drawn closer to approving a budget resolution for fiscal 2018 that would pave the way for tax legislation to reach President Donald Trump's desk by the end of the first quarter of next year. Surveys show that investors have all but given up on the prospect of tax cuts, which means that it will be a positive surprise if it finally arrives (as we expect). Positive U.S. economic growth surprises and the disappearing output gap will allow the Fed to raise rates more than is discounted by the markets, providing a lift to the dollar and widening U.S. yield spreads relative to its trading partners. The momentum in profit growth, however, will favor Japan relative to the U.S. and Europe. Investors should favor Japanese equities and hedge the currency risk. There is still more upside for oil prices, but we are not playing the rally in base metals. The Chinese economy is performing well at the moment, but ample base metal supply and a rising dollar argue against a substantial price rise from current levels. Emerging market equities should underperform the developed markets due to a rising U.S. dollar and the largely sideways path for base metals. Our macro and profit views are consistent with cyclicals outperforming defensive stocks. Investors should also continue to bet on higher inflation expectations and be overweight corporate bonds (relative to governments) in the major developed fixed-income markets. Our base-case outlook implies that it is too early to fully retreat from risk assets and prepare for the next recession. Nonetheless, the market has entered a late-cycle phase. Calm macro readings and still-easy monetary policy have generated signs of froth. Investors appear to have shed fears of secular stagnation, and have embraced a return to a lackluster-growth version of the Great Moderation. Low levels of market correlation and implied volatility can perhaps be justified, but only if there are no financial accidents on the horizon and any rise in inflation is gradual enough to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Upside inflation surprises would destabilize the three-legged stool supporting risk assets, especially at a time when the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet. Black Monday is a reminder that major market pullbacks can occur even when the economic outlook is bright. Thus, investors with less tolerance for risk should maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons, and to ensure that they have dry powder to exploit them when they materialize. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 26, 2017 Next Report: November 20, 2017 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "Black Monday, Thirty Years On: Revisiting The First Modern Global Financial Crisis," October 19, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Banks Hold The Key," October 24, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 Recent Wage Dynamics In Advanced Economies: Drivers And Implications. Chapter 2, IMF World Economic Outlook. October 2017. II. Three Demographic Megatrends Dear Client, This month's Special Report is written by my colleague, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist. Peter highlights three key demographic trends that will shape financial markets in the coming decades. His non-consensus conclusions include the idea that demographic trends will be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul, in part because the trends are inflationary. Moreover, continuing social fragmentation will not be good for business. Mark McClellan Megatrend #1: Population Aging. Aging has been deflationary over the past few decades, but will become inflationary over the coming years. Megatrend #2: Global Migration. International migration has the potential to lift millions out of poverty while boosting global productivity. However, if left unmanaged, it poses serious risks to economic stability. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation. Rising inequality, cultural self-segregation, and political polarization are imperilling democracy and threatening free-market institutions. On balance, these trends are likely to be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul. In today's increasingly short-term oriented world, it is easy to lose track of megatrends that are slowly shifting the ground under investors' feet. In this report, we tackle three key social/demographic trends. Chart II-1Our Aging World Megatrend #1: Population Aging Fertility rates have fallen below replacement levels across much of the planet. This has resulted in aging populations and slower labor force growth (Chart II-1). In the standard neoclassical growth model, a decline in labor force growth pushes down the real neutral rate of interest, r*. This happens because slower labor force growth causes the capital stock to increase relative to the number of workers, resulting in a lower rate of return on capital.1 The problem with this model is that it treats the saving rate as fixed.2 In reality, the saving rate is likely to adjust to changes in the age composition of the workforce. Initially, as the median age of the population rises, aggregate savings will increase as more people move into their peak saving years (ages 30 to 50). This will put even further downward pressure on the neutral rate of interest. Eventually, however, savings will fall as these very same people enter retirement. This, in turn, will lead to a higher neutral rate of interest. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in r*, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up, leading to higher long-term nominal bond yields. Contrary to popular belief, spending actually increases later in life once health care costs are included in the tally (Chart II-2). And despite all the happy talk about how people will work much longer in the future, the unfortunate fact is that the percentage of American 65 year-olds who are unable to lead active lives because of health care problems has risen from 8.8% to 12.5% over the past 10 years (Chart II-3). Cognitive skills among 65 year-olds have also declined over this period. We are approaching the inflection point where demographic trends will morph from being deflationary to being inflationary. Globally, the ratio of workers-to-consumers - the so-called "support ratio" - has peaked after a forty-year ascent (Chart II-4). As the support ratio declines, global savings will fall. To say that global saving rates will decline is the same as saying that there will be more spending for every dollar of income. Since global income must sum to global GDP, this implies that global spending will rise relative to production. That is likely to be inflationary. Chart II-2Savings Over The Life Cycle Chart II-3Climbing Those Stairs Is ##br##Getting More And More Difficult Chart II-4The Ratio Of Workers To ##br##Consumers Has Peaked The projected evolution of support ratios varies across countries. The most dramatic change will happen in China. China's support ratio peaked a few years ago and will fall sharply during the coming decade. Nearly one billion Chinese workers entered the global labor force during the 1980s and 1990s as the country opened up to the rest of the world. According to the UN, China will lose over 400 million workers over the remainder of the century (Chart II-5). If the addition of millions of Chinese workers to the global labor force was deflationary in the past, their withdrawal will be inflationary in the future. The fabled "Chinese savings glut" will eventually dry up. Chart II-5China On Course To Lose More ##br##Than 400 Million Workers Rising female labor force participation rates have blunted the effect of population aging in Europe and Japan. This has allowed the share of the population that is employed to increase over the past few decades. However, as female participation stabilizes and more people enter retirement, both regions will also see a rapid decline in saving rates. This could lead to a deterioration in their current account balances, with potential negative implications for the yen and the euro. Population aging is generally bad news for equities. The slower expansion in the labor force will reduce the trend GDP growth. This will curb revenue growth, and by extension, earnings growth. To make matter worse, to the extent that lower savings rates lead to higher real interest rates, population aging could reduce the price-earnings multiple at which stocks trade. This could be further exacerbated by the need for households to run down their wealth as they age, which presumably would include the sale of equities. Megatrend #2: Global Migration Economist Michael Clemens once characterized the free movement of people across national boundaries as a "trillion-dollar bill" just waiting to be picked up from the sidewalk.3 Millions of workers toil away in poor countries where corruption is rife and opportunities for gainful employment are limited. Global productivity levels would rise if they could move to rich countries where they could better utilize their talents. Academic studies suggest that less restrictive immigration policies would do much more to raise global output than freer trade policies. In fact, several studies have concluded that the removal of all barriers to labor mobility would more than double global GDP (Table II-1). The problem is that many migrants today are poorly skilled. While they can produce more in rich countries than they can back home, they still tend to be less productive than the average native-born worker. This can be especially detrimental to less-skilled workers in rich countries who have to face greater competition - and ultimately, lower wages - for their labor. Chart II-6 shows that the share of U.S. income accruing to the top one percent of households has closely tracked the foreign-born share of the population. Table II-1Economic Benefits Of Open Borders Chart II-6Immigration Versus Income Distribution Low-skilled migration can also place significant strains on social safety nets. These concerns are especially pronounced in Europe. The employment rate among immigrants in a number of European countries is substantially lower than for the native-born population (Chart II-7). For example, in Sweden, the employment rate for immigrant men is about 10 percentage points lower than for native-born men. For women, the gap is 17 points. The OECD reckons that a typical 21-year old immigrant to Europe will contribute €87,000 less to public coffers in the form of lower taxes and higher welfare benefits than a non-immigrant of the same age (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Low Levels Of Immigrant Labor Participation In Parts Of Europe Chart II-8Immigration Is Straining Generous ##br##European Welfare States All of this would matter little if the children of today's immigrants converged towards the national average in terms of income and educational attainment, as has usually occurred with past immigration waves. However, the evidence that this is happening is mixed. While there is a huge amount of variation within specific immigrant communities, on average, some groups have fared better than others. The children of Asian immigrants to the U.S. have tended to excel in school, whereas college completion rates among third-generation-and-higher, self-identified Hispanics are still only half that of native-born non-Hispanic whites (Chart II-9). Across the OECD, second generation immigrant children tend to lag behind non-immigrant students, often by substantial margins (Chart II-10). Chart II-9Hispanic Educational Attainment Lags Behind Chart II-10Worries About Immigrant Assimilation Immigration policies that place emphasis on attracting skilled migrants would mitigate these concerns. While such policies have been adopted in a number of countries, they have often been opposed by right-leaning business groups that benefit from cheap and abundant labor and left-leaning political parties that want the votes that immigrants and their descendants provide. Humanitarian concerns also make it difficult to curtail migration, especially when it is coming from war-torn regions. Chart II-11The Projected Expansion ##br##In Sub-Saharan Population Europe's migration crisis has ebbed in recent months but could flare up at any time. In 2004, the United Nations estimated that sub-Saharan Africa's population will increase to 2 billion by the end of the century, up from one billion at present. In its 2017 revision, the UN doubled its projection to 4 billion. Nigeria's population is expected to rise to nearly 800 million by 2100; Congo's will soar to 370 million; Ethiopia's will hit 250 million (Chart II-11). And even that may be too conservative because the UN assumes that the average number of births per woman in sub-Saharan Africa will fall from 5.1 to 2.2 over this period. For investors, the possibility that migration flows could become disorderly raises significant risks. For one, low-skill migration could also cause fiscal balances to deteriorate, leading to higher interest rates. Moreover, as we discuss in greater detail below, it could propel more populist parties into power. This is a particularly significant worry for Europe, where populist parties have often pursued business-sceptic, anti-EU agendas. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation In his book "Bowling Alone," Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam documented the breakdown of social capital across America, famously exemplified by the decline in bowling leagues.4 There is no single explanation for why communal ties appear to be fraying. Those on the left cite rising income and wealth inequality. Those on the right blame the welfare state and government policies that prioritize multiculturalism over assimilation. Conservative commentators also argue that today's cultural elites are no longer interested in instilling the rest of society with middle-class values. As a result, behaviours that were once only associated with the underclass have gone mainstream.5 Technological trends are exacerbating social fragmentation. Instead of bringing people together, the internet has allowed like-minded people to self-segregate into echo chambers where members of the community simply reinforce what others already believe. It is thus no surprise that political polarization has grown by leaps and bounds (Chart II-12). When people can no longer see eye to eye, established institutions lose legitimacy. Chart II-13 shows that trust in the media has collapsed, especially among right-leaning voters. Perhaps most worrying, support for democracy itself has dwindled around the world (Chart II-14). Chart II-12U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart Chart II-13The Erosion Of Trust In Media It would be naïve to think that the public's rejection of the political establishment will not be mirrored in a loss of support for the business establishment. The Democrats "Better Deal" moves the party to the left on many economic issues. Nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters believe that corporations make "too much profit," up from about 60% in the 1990s (Chart II-15). Chart II-14Who Needs Democracy When You Have Tinder? Chart II-15People Versus Companies The share of Republican voters who think corporations are undertaxed has stayed stable in the low-40s, but this may not last much longer. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the rest of the corporate establishment tend to lean liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones - the exact opposite of a typical Trump voter. If Trump voters abandon corporate America, this will leave the U.S. without any major party actively pushing a pro-business agenda. That can't be good for profit margins. The fact that social fragmentation is on the rise casts doubt on much of the boilerplate, feel-good commentary written about the "sharing economy." For starters, the term is absurd. Uber drivers are not sharing their vehicles. They are using them to make money. Both passengers and drivers can see one another's ratings before they meet. This reduces the need for trust. As trust falls, crime rises. The U.S. homicide rate surged by 20% between 2014 and 2016 according to a recent FBI report.6 In Chicago, the murder rate jumped by 86%. In Baltimore, it spiked by 52%. Chart II-16 shows that violent crime in Baltimore has remained elevated ever since riots gripped the city in April 2015. The number of homicides in New York, whose residents tend to support more liberal policing standards for cities other than their own, has remained flat, but that is unlikely to stay the case if crime is rising elsewhere. The multi-century decline in European homicide rates also appears to have ended (Table II-2). Much has been written about how millennials are flocking to cities to enjoy the benefits of urban life. But this trend emerged during a period when urban crime rates were falling. If that era has ended, urban real estate prices could suffer tremendously. It is perhaps not surprising that the increase in crime rates starting in the 1960s was mirrored in rising inflation (Chart II-17). If governments cannot even maintain law and order, how can they be trusted to do what it takes to preserve the value of fiat money? The implication is that greater social instability in the future is likely to lead to lower bond prices and a higher equity risk premium. Chart II-16Do You Still Want To Move Downtown? Table II-2Crime Rates Are Creeping Higher In Europe Chart II-17Homicides And Inflation Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 2 Another problem with the neoclassical model is that it assumes perfectly flexible wages and prices. This ensures that the economy is always at full employment. Thus, if the saving rate rises, investment is assumed to increase to fully fill the void left by the decline in consumption. In the real world, the opposite tends to happen: When households reduce consumption, firms invest less, not more, in new capacity. One of the advantages of the traditional Keynesian framework is that it captures this reality. And interestingly, it also predicts that aging will be deflationary at first, but will eventually become inflationary. Initially, slower population growth reduces the need for firm to expand capacity, causing investment demand to fall. Aggregate savings also rises, as more people move into their peak saving years. Globally, savings must equal investment. If desired investment falls and desired savings rises, real rates will increase. At the margin, higher real rates will discourage investment and encourage saving, thus ensuring that the global savings-investment identity is satisfied. As savings ultimately begins to decline as more people retire, the equilibrium real rate of interest will rise again. 3 Michael A. Clemens, "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 25, no.3, pp. 83-106 (Summer 2011). 4 Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone: The Collapse And Revival Of American Community," Simon and Schuster, 2001. 5 Charles Murray has been a leading proponent of this argument. Please see "Coming Apart: The State Of White America, 1960-2010," Three Rivers Press, 2013. 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime In The United States 2016" (Accessed October 25, 2017). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Global equity markets partied in October on solid earnings and economic growth figures, and the rising chances of a tax cut in the U.S. among other bullish developments. The Nikkei has been particularly strong in local currency terms following the re-election of Abe. Our equity indicators remain upbeat on the whole, although the rally is looking stretched by some measures. The BCA monetary indicator is hovering at a benign level. Implied equity volatility is very low, investor sentiment is frothy and our Speculation Indicator is elevated. These suggest that a lot of good news is already discounted. Our valuation indicator is also closing in on the threshold of overvaluation at one standard deviation. Our technical indicator is rolling over, although it needs to fall below the zero line to send a 'sell' signal. On a constructive note, the solid rise in earnings-per-share is likely to continue in the near term, based on positive earnings surprises and the net revisions ratio. Moreover, our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in September for the third consecutive month. We introduced the RPI in the July report. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks in the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. and European WTPs rose in October after a brief sideways move in previous months, suggesting that equity flows have turned more constructive. But the Japanese WTP is outshining the others. Given that the Japanese WTP is rising from a low level, it suggests that there is more 'dry powder' available to purchase Japanese stocks, especially relative to the U.S. market. We favor Japanese stocks relative to the other two markets in local currency terms, as highlighted in the Overview section. Oversold conditions for the U.S. dollar have now been absorbed based on our technical indicator, but there is plenty of upside for the currency before technical headwinds begin to bite. The greenback looks expensive based on PPP, but is less so on other measures. We are positive in the near term. Our composite technical indicator for U.S. Treasurys has moved above the zero line, but has not reached oversold territory. Bond valuation is close to fair value based on our long-standing valuation model. These factors suggest that yields have more upside potential before meeting resistance. Other models that specifically incorporate global economic factors suggest that the 10-year Treasury is still about 20 basis points on the expensive side. Stay below benchmark in duration. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Please note that in addition to today's abbreviated Weekly Bulletin, we are also publishing a Special Report on Argentina. Feature Regarding recent financial market dynamics, it appears that the high-yielding EM currencies are breaking down as U.S. bond yields march higher. Several EM exchange rates have formed a tapering wedge pattern, as shown in Chart I-1. Such patterns eventually lead a major break out or break down. Our bias remains that we are witnessing a major breakdown in several EM high-yielding currencies. If this transpires, it would be a precursor for a wider selloff in EM risk assets. Below we discuss interesting dynamics that have emerged in India's onshore fixed-income market lately, and their implications for the nation's equity market. India Several signals tentatively indicate that the price of liquidity has risen at the margin in India. Onshore BBB corporate bond yields have increased and their respective credit spreads have widened (Chart I-2). In addition, the yield curve has steepened modestly. Chart I-1A Tapering Wedge: ##br##A Breakout Or Breakdown? Chart I-2India: Onshore BBB Corporate Bond ##br##Yields And Spreads Have Spiked Rising corporate bond yields and widening corporate credit spreads have been negative for share prices in the past (Chart I-3). Similarly, steepening yield curves have been associated with a pullback in equity prices in recent years (Chart I-4). Note that yields, spreads and the yield curve are shown inverted on Charts I-3 and I-4. Chart I-3India: Corporate Bond Yields ##br##And Spreads Versus Stocks Chart I-4India: Yield Curve ##br##And Share Prices Why has the market price of liquidity risen in India? In our opinion, it has to do with both the domestic and external environments. On the domestic side, the fiscal deficit has widened, implying that borrowing requirements by central and state governments have risen (Chart I-5). Increased demand for credit from the government would not have been a problem had the commercial banks accommodated for it by creating enough new money. Yet, broad money supply growth remains depressed (Chart I-6). Chart I-5India: Ballooning Fiscal Deficits ##br##And Weak Money Creation Chart I-6Indian Money Growth: ##br##New Record Low As a result, the diminished amount of new money relative to demand for money, among other reasons, pushed marginal borrowing costs higher. Chart I-7 shows our proxy for new money available to the private sector has dipped into negative territory. On the external side, the recent rise in U.S. bond yields and the rebound in the U.S. dollar against several EM currencies might have also contributed to higher borrowing costs in India. We expect this U.S. dollar rebound versus EM currencies to persist and U.S. Treasury yields to continue drifting higher. Hence, the global backdrop heralds marginally higher bond yields in India. Although the onshore corporate bond market - and its BBB segment - is not very large, investors should heed to its signals because it reflects the cost of borrowing for the marginal corporate borrower. Besides, its signals have worked quite well in the past as shown in previous Chart I-3 on page 2. Some commentators might argue that the mild rise in government bond yields has been driven by a rise in inflation and growth expectations. We will not disagree with that, but both economic growth and inflation variables are still muted. Chart I-8 shows economic activity is lukewarm at best. Chart I-7India: Proxy For New Money ##br##Available To Private Sector Chart I-8India's Growth Is ##br##Lukewarm At Best On the inflation outlook, the picture is mixed as well. Consumer price inflation, especially core measures, might have bottomed (Chart I-9). Critically, the government approved a draft bill in July that allows the central government to set minimum wages across all sectors and states. The central government is currently reviewing the formula used to set minimum wage and the new formula might lead to significant increases in minimum wages. These policy changes come on top of the pay raises that public sector workers saw earlier this year. Importantly, if consumer demand accelerates while capital spending remains in the doldrums, inflationary pressures will mount. Chart I-10 shows that since 2012 consumer spending has outpaced investment by a large margin. Chart I-9India: Consumer Inflation ##br##Might Be Bottoming Chart I-10India: Consumer Spending ##br##Has Outpaced Investment Provided India has been, and remains, an underinvested economy, if this gap persists, it will produce either inflation or a widening current account deficit. Rising consumption without an equal increase in the supply of goods and services will either lead to higher prices or mushrooming consumer goods imports. Both scenarios bode ill for the macro dynamics, the currency, and ultimately equity multiples. As to financial markets, the Indian bourse is one of the most expensive in the EM space, so it is not very surprising that share prices could react negatively to marginally higher interest rates. For dedicated EM equity investors, we downgraded India from overweight to neutral on August 23, and this stance remains intact. While near-term underperformance cannot be ruled out, the medium-term outlook for relative performance warrants a neutral stance. Bottom Line: There are signals that liquidity is tightening on the margin in India's fixed-income markets due to domestic and external reasons. This will likely hurt share prices. Dedicated EM equity investors should keep a neutral allocation on India's bourse. Mexico: Close Currency, Rates, And Credit Overweights NAFTA risks to Mexico are escalating again. According to our Geopolitical Strategy team, there is non-trivial probability that the NAFTA negotiations will become negative for Mexican financial markets. The recent relapse in Mexico's financial markets will likely endure. We are closing the following positions: long MXN / short BRL; long MXN / short ZAR; receive Mexican 2-year / pay 2-year swap rates as well as overweight positions in Mexican sovereign credit versus Colombia and Indonesia. Dedicated equity investors should stay neutral on this bourse. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Global "Low-flation" Vs. Oil Reflation: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018 Strong Growth Vs. Modest Inflation In Europe: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Feature The bull market in global risk assets continued last week, with the S&P 500 hitting yet another all-time record and other major bourses in both Developed Markets and Emerging Markets hitting multi-year highs. This is a sensible reflection of the strength and persistence of the current coordinated global economic upturn, which is boosting corporate profit growth worldwide. At the same time, the health of the current expansion has dampened risk-aversion among investors. This is helping to keep market volatility at depressed levels with only modest changes expected for both inflation and monetary policy. Yet there are storms brewing on the horizon that have the potential to shake up this low-volatility, risk-seeking backdrop. Specifically, a potentially less stable outlook for global inflation, amidst uncertainty over the direction of fiscal policy in the U.S. and monetary policy at the Fed and European Central Bank (ECB), could pose a threat to the current Goldilocks environment for risk assets (Chart of the Week). In this Weekly Report, we discuss some macroeconomic "trade-offs" that investors will have to grapple with over the next 6-12 months, and how to position bond portfolios accordingly. Chart of the WeekMarkets Not Worried About The Fed Or ECB Trade-Off #1: "Low-flation" Vs. Rising Oil Prices Chart 2Global Inflation Pressures Are Slowly Building Realized inflation data across the major developed economies is showing no imminent threat of breaching, or even just reaching, central bank targets. This is occurring despite a robust, coordinated global economic expansion that is generating some of the fastest growth rates seen since the Great Recession. With nearly ¾ of the countries in the OECD now with unemployment rates below the estimates of the full employment NAIRU, subdued inflation readings remain a puzzle for both investors and policymakers (Chart 2). The term "low-flation" has been used to describe this backdrop of inflation rates remaining low seemingly regardless of what is happening with growth. Bond investors have reacted to this by keeping market-based inflation expectations at levels below central bank inflation targets, suggesting a potential problem with the credibility of policymakers. Yet a fresh challenge to the low-flation thesis will soon come from the global oil markets. Last week, our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy upgraded their oil price targets for the fourth quarter of 2017 and all of 2018.1 Their estimates for global oil demand were revised upward based on the improving economic momentum, as evidenced by the IMF recently boosting its own forecasts for world GDP growth to 3.6% for all of 2017 and 3.7% for 2018. Combined with continued discipline on output from the so-called "OPEC 2.0" coalition of Russia & Saudi Arabia - currently responsible for 22% of the world's oil production - the global oil market is expected to see demand exceeding supply until late 2018 (Chart 3). The positive demand/supply balance should lead the Brent oil price benchmark to average just over $65/bbl in 2018 (Table 1), which would be a 13% increase from current levels. This is a move that global bond markets are likely to notice, given the strong correlation that still exists between market-based inflation expectations and oil prices in the developed economies. Chart 3A Positive Fundamental Backdrop For Oil Table 1Upgrading The BCA Oil Price Forecasts In Charts 4 & 5, we show the market-based pricing on inflation expectations at the 10-year maturity for the U.S. (using TIPS breakevens), the U.K., Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia (using CPI swaps). For each country, we also show the Brent oil price denominated in local currency terms. We add one additional data point to the charts, shown as an asterisk, incorporating the 2018 average Brent oil price expectation converted at current exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar. As can be seen, the higher oil price that our commodity strategists are expecting should act to put upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of government bond yields in the major developed markets. Chart 4Upward Pressure On Inflation Expectations ... Chart 5... From Higher Oil Prices In 2018 Of course, the unchanged currency assumption made in Charts 4 & 5 is unrealistic. Yet given the significant increase in oil prices that we are expecting next year (+13%), it is also unrealistic to expect enough currency appreciation in any country to fully offset the inflationary impact from oil. In fact, given the BCA view that the U.S. dollar should enjoy one last cyclical boost next year as the Fed delivers more rate hikes than the market is currently discounting, inflation expectations may actually rise by more than we are showing in our charts in non-U.S. countries (given that oil is priced in U.S. dollars). In Table 2, we show the forecast for the local-currency Brent oil price for 2018 and the date that oil prices were last at that level in each country (all in 2015 after the cyclical peak in oil prices that began in 2014). We also present the data on 10-year government bond yields, the 2-year/10-year slope of yield curves, market-based inflation expectations, and realized headline and core inflation rates for the major developed economies. We show the current levels for all those variables, plus the levels that prevailed the last time oil was at the levels we are forecasting. The major differences that stand out are: Table 2Bond Markets Now Vs. The Last Time Oil Prices Were In The Mid-$60s Yield levels are not dramatically different than where they were in 2015 in the U.S., Canada and Australia, but are lower now in the U.K., Euro Area and Japan thanks to central bank asset purchase programs. Yield curves are much flatter now in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Japan, but are steeper in the Euro Area and Australia. Market-based inflation expectations now are very close to the levels that prevailed in 2015, except in Japan where they are much lower. Headline inflation rates are much higher now everywhere except Australia, while core inflation rates are a lot higher in the U.K., a touch higher in the U.S. and Euro Area, and lower everywhere else. The conclusion from Table 2 is that there is potential for bond yields to rise as oil prices head higher in the U.S., U.K. and Euro Area given that inflation expectations are at the same levels as 2015 but realized inflation rates are higher. This would suggest that owning inflation protection in these countries is a sensible way to play the "low-flation vs. oil reflation" trade-off - trades that we already have in place in our Tactical Trade Overlay by being long Euro Area CPI swaps and owning U.S. TIPS versus nominal U.S. Treasuries and (see table on page 16). We are reluctant to add U.K. inflation protection to this list, however, and may even look to go the other way given the likelihood that the currency-fueled surge in U.K. inflation is in the process of peaking out. In sum, bond markets will be unable to ignore a combination of strong global growth (still called for by rising global leading economic indicators), tightening labor markets and rising oil prices in 2018. As investors come to grips with oil trading with a 60-handle for the first time since 2015, inflation expectations should widen out in all developed market countries that are at, or beyond, full employment. This should put upward pressure on nominal bond yields as well, and potentially trigger bear-steepening of yield curves if central banks do not respond to higher oil-driven inflation with a faster tightening of monetary policy. Bottom Line: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Trade-Off #2: Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing Last Friday, the U.S. Senate passed President Trump's budget plan by the slimmest of margins (51 to 49), allowing for an increase in federal deficits of up to $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Trump immediately put pressure on the U.S. House of Representatives to also pass the Senate plan, and the initial comments from House Republican leadership was that they would also endorse the Senate budget proposal which included significant tax cuts for corporations and some households. This is unsurprising given that the Republicans need a major, economy-boosting legislative victory to present to voters in next year's U.S. Midterm elections. The U.S. Treasury market responded to this news on Friday in a fashion that we believe to be sensible - the curve bear-steepened, with the 2-year/30-year spread widening 4bps on the day. We have written about the interaction between budget deficits, Fed policy and the slope of the Treasury curve in past Weekly Reports this year, most recently at the beginning of this month.2 Chart 6 is taken from that most recent report, and we feel that it is important to go through our logic once again after last week's events. Chart 6UST Curve: Bear-Steepener First, Bear-Flattener Later The Treasury curve typically steepens during periods when the U.S. federal budget deficit is widening (top panel). The Treasury curve is typically negatively correlated to the real fed funds rate, steepening when the real rate is falling and vice versa. Budget deficits usually are widening during periods of soft economic growth, when tax receipts are slowing and counter-cyclical fiscal spending is increasing. This is also typically correlated to periods when spare capacity in the U.S. economy is opening up and inflation pressures are diminishing (middle panel), hence giving the Fed cover to lower interest rates and putting steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. The current backdrop is atypical, as a fiscal stimulus is being proposed at a time when the economy is already at full employment with little sign of slowing. At the same time, the Fed is in a tightening cycle - albeit a slow one because of relatively subdued inflation - which usually does not occur during periods of widening budget deficits. This represents another difficult "trade-off" for investors to process. A so-called "full employment" fiscal stimulus should be inflationary at the margin, by definition, if it boosts economic growth to an above-potential pace. That would steepen the Treasury curve as longer-term inflation expectations rise, until the Fed steps in with rate hikes to offset the impact of the fiscal stimulus. If the Fed felt that the greater fiscal deficit was becoming a problem for medium-term inflation stability, then there could be a faster pace of rate hikes that would boost the real funds rate and put flattening pressure on the Treasury curve. A more straightforward way to describe that would be a scenario where the Trump tax cuts end up boosting U.S. real GDP growth to something close to 3% next year, which results in the U.S. unemployment rate falling to a "3-handle". This would likely put upward pressure on U.S. realized inflation and steepen the Treasury curve as the market prices in higher inflation - IF the Fed is slow to respond to that inflation pickup. When inflation rises by enough to threaten the Fed's 2% inflation target, perhaps even rising above that level, then the Fed would step in with more rate hikes. The result: a higher real fed funds rate and a flatter Treasury curve. That scenario is how we envision the next year playing out. Various FOMC members have already noted that they cannot account for any fiscal stimulus in their economic projections until they see the details. Furthermore, many members of the FOMC are expressing concern that the downdraft in inflation was enough of a surprise to raise questions about the Fed's understanding of the underlying inflation process. This suggests that the Fed will want to see inflation, both realized and expected, rise first before increasing the pace of rate hikes beyond current projections. Net-net, we see the Trump fiscal stimulus steepening the Treasury curve in 2018 before the Fed flattens it with tighter monetary policy. One caveat for the latter is the upcoming decision on the next Fed Chair. President Trump, ever the reality game show host, noted last week that the finalists for this season's episode for "The Apprentice: FOMC" are now down to Jerome Powell, John Taylor and current Chair Janet Yellen. Both Powell and, of course, Yellen would represent a continuation of the current cautious FOMC framework, while Taylor would likely be more hawkish given his public comments on Fed policy decisions (and the output of his own Taylor Rule!). If Taylor were to be appointed by Trump as the new Fed Chair, the Treasury curve may not steepen much on the back of fiscal easing if the markets begin to discount a more aggressive Fed. Bottom Line: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018. Trade-Off #3: Strong European Growth Vs. Mild Inflation The ECB meets later this week, and is expected to make a decision on the size and scope of its asset purchase program for next year and beyond. The latest Bloomberg survey of economists is calling for a cut in the monthly pace of asset purchases from €60bn/month to €30bn/month, but with an extension of the program until September 2018.3 The same survey calls for the ECB to deliver a hike in the deposit rate in Q1/2019, with a hike in the benchmark interest rate in Q2/2019. We agree with the former, although we think there will be no rate hikes of any kind until the 4th quarter of 2019, at the earliest. Chart 7Why Would The ECB NOT Taper? The trade-off between robust European growth and still modest rates of core inflation are the reason we expect the ECB to be very late to begin hiking policy rates after the asset purchase program is completed. It is clear from a variety of data, from almost all countries in the Euro Area, that the economy is expanding at a robust, above-potential pace (Chart 7). Headline inflation has increased steadily off the 2015 lows and now sits at 1.5%, still below the ECB's target of "just below 2%". The ECB has played down this pickup in inflation, given that is has largely been driven by the rise in oil prices since the 2015 lows. There is certainly a strong correlation between the annual change of oil prices (denominated in euros) and Euro Area headline inflation (middle panel), and the ECB expects fading oil price momentum to result in Euro Area headline inflation drifting back to 1% in early 2018. Yet the oil price increase that our commodity strategists are calling for next year would boost the year-over-year growth rate to a pace around 40%, which has in the past been consistent with 2% headline inflation outcomes. A rising euro would help mitigate the impact from oil, but as mentioned earlier, we see more potential for some modest depreciation of the euro versus the U.S. dollar after the run-up seen in 2017. Despite the pickup in headline inflation already underway, core inflation in Europe remains benign at 1.1%. Our measure of the "breadth" of the rise in core inflation across 75 individual subsectors - the Euro Area core inflation diffusion index - sits right around the "50 line" suggesting that just as many components of Euro Area core inflation are rising as are falling. Yet with broad Euro Area unemployment approaching 8%, and with some measures of wage inflation starting to awake as a result, the odds are increasing that continued strong growth will result in additional upward momentum in core inflation. The ECB is already forecasting a return of core inflation to 1.9% in 2019, which is why some reduction in the pace of asset purchases will be announced this week. The entire asset purchase program was only put in place in 2015 to fight a deflation threat after oil prices collapsed in 2014, and that has now passed with inflation steadily grinding higher. So the "trade-off" for investors in Europe, between strong growth and moderate inflation, will be resolved by the ECB shifting to a less-accommodative monetary policy stance. In terms of the impact on Euro Area bond yields, however, the change in the pace of bond buying matters even more than the size of the asset purchases. In Chart 8, we show the ECB's monetary base and three scenarios for how it will evolve through asset purchases until the end of 2018: Base Case: The ECB slows the pace of bond buying to €30bn/month starting in January 2018 until September 2018, then cuts that down to €15bn/month for the remainder of 2018 and stops the program completely at year-end. Dovish Scenario: The pace of bond buying is maintained at €60bn/month until the end of 2018, with no commitment to end the program then. Hawkish Scenario: The ECB tapers its purchases by €10bn/month for the first six months of next year, then ends the program in July 2018. In the bottom two panels of Chart 8, we show the year-over-year growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet, with those three scenarios, and compare them to the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield and our estimate of the German term premium. In all three scenarios, even the dovish one where the ECB keeps on buying at the current pace, the growth rate of the monetary base will decelerate in 2018. As can be seen in the chart, that growth rate has been highly correlated to yields and the term premium during the life of the ECB's asset purchase program. The conclusion here is that central bank asset purchase programs need to increase in size versus previous years to maintain the same impact on bond yields over time. Put another way, asset purchases represent a signaling mechanism ("forward guidance") from a central bank to the markets about future changes in interest rates when they are already at the zero bound. Increasing the size of the purchases sends a more powerful message than simply keeping the pace of buying unchanged. This is especially true if the underlying economy is growing and inflation is rising, which would typically cause investors to price in a higher expected path of interest rates into the government bond yield curve. So, unless the ECB takes the highly unlikely step of increasing the size of its asset purchases for next year, then there are no outcomes from this week's ECB meeting that should be expected to be sustainably bullish for longer-dated European government bonds. At the same time, there will be no signals given on future changes in short-term interest rates, as the ECB has maintained for some time that rates will not be touched until "some time" after the asset purchase program has ended (Q4/2019, in our view). Hence, Euro Area yield curves are likely to eventually see some bear-steepening pressure on the back of this week's ECB meeting. The story is similar for Peripheral European government bonds and Euro Area investment grade corporate credit. In Chart 9, we show the same growth rates of the ECB monetary base with our scenario projections versus the 10-year Italy-Germany spread, 10-year Spain-Germany spread, 10-year Portugal-Germany spread and the Barclays Bloomberg Euro Area Investment Grade corporate spread. While the correlations are not as clear as that for German yields, a slower pace of ECB asset purchases would be consistent with some spread widening in Peripheral European and in corporate credit. Chart 8ECB Bond Buying:##BR##Watch The Pace, Not The Level Chart 9European Credit Spreads##BR##Set To Widen Post-ECB? Bottom Line: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten", dated October 19th 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For Steeper Yield Curves", dated October 3rd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-22/draghi-seen-going-for-ecb-bond-buying-limit-in-qe-s-last-hurrah The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Yield Curve & TIPS: To avoid policy failure the Fed must allow inflation to reach its 2% target before the onset of the next recession. This means it will soon fall behind the inflation curve. Treasury curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners will benefit. Inflation: The current cycle looks very similar to the cycle of the late 1990s. In both cases the unemployment rate fell far below its natural level before inflation started to accelerate. Almost all of the indicators that predicted the 1999 increase in inflation are currently sending strong positive signals. Credit Spreads: Spreads are tight across the entire credit spectrum, but risk-adjusted value is most attractive in the Caa, B and Baa credit tiers. Feature Chart 1Low Inflation + Flat Curve = Policy Mistake In the 12 months leading up to August, headline PCE inflation came in at 1.43% and core PCE inflation was a mere 1.29%. Both readings are well short of the Fed's 2% target. At the same time, the 2/10 Treasury curve is only 79 basis points away from inversion (Chart 1). The combination of low inflation and a flat yield curve suggests that, despite below-target inflation, the market views Fed policy as relatively restrictive. This situation is not sustainable. The Fed must, and will, fall behind the curve. An inverted yield curve represents the market's expectation that the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates in the future. As such, it has an excellent track record as a recession indicator. Now consider a situation where the yield curve inverts with inflation never having re-gained the Fed's target. The Fed would have tightened the yield curve into inversion, and the economy into recession, without having achieved its inflation goal. This is the most striking example of monetary policy failure that we can dream up, and unless we witness a trend change in either inflation or the slope of the curve, it is an outcome we are likely to face. Of course we do not think the above scenario will actually come to pass. In fact, our investment strategy hinges on the premise that the Fed would never abide such an outcome. This means that one of two things will occur in the coming months: Inflation will rebound and the Fed will be able to fall behind the curve while still delivering a pace of rate hikes similar to its median expectation - one more hike this year and three more next year. Inflation will remain low and the Fed will be forced to fall behind the curve by reneging on its forecasted rate hike path. These two possibilities are illustrated by looking at the real fed funds rate (deflated by core PCE inflation) alongside the popular Laubach-Williams estimate of its equilibrium level (Chart 2). In the Fed's policy framework the real interest rate must stay below equilibrium for inflation to rise. Likewise, if the Fed lifts the real interest rate above equilibrium it is because it wants inflation to fall. What is clear from Chart 2 is that one more rate hike with no improvement in inflation will move monetary policy into restrictive territory. Our contention is that the Fed will ensure that monetary policy remains accommodative (i.e. it will remain behind the curve) until inflation returns to the 2% target. Chart 2Too Close To Neutral Investment Implications Chart 3Yield Curve & Breakevens Move Together The first corollary of the above proposition is that the Fed will need strong conviction that inflation is poised to move higher before it delivers another rate hike. Chair Yellen is clinging to this notion for now: My best guess is that these soft readings will not persist, and with the ongoing strengthening of labor markets, I expect inflation to move higher next year. Most of my colleagues on the FOMC agree.1 We would also agree that inflation will be strong enough going forward for the Fed to justify a rate increase in December and several more next year (see section titled "Party Like It's 1999?" below). This is the main reason we continue to advocate a below-benchmark duration stance. But while our duration call will suffer if inflation does not rise as we expect, our recommendations to position for a steeper yield curve and wider long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates will pan out as long as the Fed falls behind the curve. If we accept the premise that the Fed must hit its inflation target before inverting the yield curve, then it will keep rates low enough for long enough to achieve that goal. This means that long-dated TIPS breakevens will necessarily return to their target range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to target, and that the yield curve will steepen alongside the widening in breakevens (Chart 3). If the deflationary pressure in the economy turns out to be stronger than we anticipate, then it simply means that a slower pace of rate hikes will be required to get inflation back to target. The way to position for this outcome on a medium-term horizon is via lower real yields (Chart 3, panel 2), not tighter TIPS breakevens or a flatter yield curve. A Fed that is behind the curve is also a key support for our overweight allocation to investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. Even though valuations have become very expensive (see section titled "Risk-Adjusted Value In Corporate Credit" below), a sustained period of spread widening would likely require a more restrictive monetary policy, one more concerned with dragging inflation lower than with propping it up. Chart 4Tax Cuts Would Steepen The Curve Political Risk There are two looming political decisions that will impact both our view on how quickly inflation will trend higher and our view on whether the Fed will indeed fall behind the curve. On the inflation front, if President Trump's tax cut plan becomes law, then the resulting fiscal stimulus will almost certainly speed up the return of inflation to target. The market has figured this out and already we observe a correlation between the slope of the yield curve, long-maturity TIPS breakevens and the relative performance of a basket of highly-taxed stocks (Chart 4). Our geopolitical strategists remain optimistic that stimulative tax legislation will be passed early next year, but note that if the Democratic party wins the upcoming Alabama senate election (to be held December 12), then there may not be enough votes in the Senate to push a tax plan through.2 The second important political decision will be the appointment of a new Fed Chair. President Trump will announce his pick within the next two weeks, and the President has suggested that the race has been winnowed down to three candidates - current Fed Chair Janet Yellen, current Fed Governor Jerome Powell and Stanford University economist John Taylor. Ex-Fed Governor Kevin Warsh could also still be in the running, although he was not specifically named by the President last week (Table 1). Table 1Top 4 Fed Chair Candidates Of those four candidates, both Yellen and Powell would maintain the status quo at the Fed. Neither would threaten our view that the Fed will fall behind the curve on inflation. Taylor or Warsh, on the other hand, could both push for a faster pace of tightening. As Fed Chairman, Professor Taylor - of Taylor Rule fame - would certainly look to adopt a more rules-based monetary policy. In all likelihood this would involve structuring policy decisions around a chosen policy rule, with the Fed justifying any deviations from that rule. His views on the current speed of Fed tightening are not as well known, but he has been critical of the Fed's zero interest rate policy in the past and has spoken favorably about several policy rules that all suggest higher interest rates than are currently observed. Similarly, Kevin Warsh has suggested that the Fed should target inflation between 1% and 2%, rather than the current symmetric 2% target. Taken at face value, this change in target would suggest a more hawkish reaction function. A John Taylor or Kevin Warsh chairmanship would call into question our key premise that the Fed will fall behind the curve, and would likely cause the Treasury curve to bear-flatten in the immediate aftermath of the appointment. Bottom Line: To avoid policy failure the Fed must allow inflation to reach its 2% target before the onset of the next recession. This means it will soon fall behind the inflation curve. Treasury curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners will benefit. Party Like It's 1999? This year's downtrend in core inflation has caused many to question whether it will ever rise again. Many are questioning whether the Phillips curve relationship between tighter labor markets and rising wage growth still holds, and even Janet Yellen is starting to wonder if the Fed is missing something: [O]ur framework for understanding inflation dynamics could be misspecified in some way. For example, global developments - perhaps technological in nature, such as the tremendous growth of online shopping - could be helping to hold down inflation in a persistent way in many countries.3 We would note, however, that this is not the first time it has taken longer than expected for cyclical inflation pressures to emerge despite a tight labor market. Consider that in the late 1990s the unemployment rate fell below its natural rate in April 1997, but inflation did not move meaningfully higher until mid-1999 (Chart 5). Chart 5The Current Cycle Looks Very Much Like The 1990s A strong dollar and negative import price shock certainly contributed to low inflation in the late 1990s, and this has also been true in the current cycle. The de-synchronized nature of the global recovery caused the dollar to surge in 2014 and 2015, much like in 1997 (Chart 6). In the late 1990s, it was only after the global recovery became more synchronized in 1999 that U.S. inflation started to respond to tight labor markets. In the current cycle, the synchronized global recovery only started in the middle of last year. Chart 6An Import Price Shock Kept Inflation Low In The 1990s And Today We identified several variables that led inflation higher in 1999. Chart 7 shows these variables from the late 1990s lined up with their readings from the current cycle. The cycles are aligned to when the unemployment rate fell below its natural level, and the vertical line shows when prices started to accelerate in 1999. The variables that led inflation higher in the 1990s were: Chart 7Pipeline Measures Led Inflation In 1999 PPI Finished Goods inflation BCA Pipeline Inflation Indicator The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge4 Corporate Price Deflator With the possible exception of the corporate price deflator, all of these variables are currently sending a strong signal that inflation is poised to rebound. Similar to 1999, we would expect the initial move higher in inflation to be met with wider long-maturity TIPS breakevens and a steeper yield curve. Notice that the 2/10 Treasury slope troughed at -5 bps in 1998, but steepened to +40 bps in early 1999 before starting to flatten again as the Fed ramped up its pace of tightening (Chart 5, panel 3). In the current cycle, we await that final steepening surge before the Fed gets more aggressive and flattens the curve once more. Bottom Line: The current cycle looks very similar to the cycle of the late 1990s. In both cases the unemployment rate fell far below its natural level before inflation started to accelerate. Almost all of the indicators that predicted the 1999 increase in inflation are currently sending strong positive signals. Risk-Adjusted Value In Corporate Credit In a recent report we noted that high-yield bond valuations were approaching all-time expensive levels.5 We concluded that with limited room for spread compression, but equally with no obvious catalyst for sustained spread widening, the high-yield market has essentially become a carry trade. This week we extend that analysis to consider each credit tier in both investment grade and high-yield bonds. Our goal is to see if any credit tiers have room for spread compression, or alternatively, which credit tiers offer the best risk-adjusted value. Unfortunately, the quick answer is that no credit tiers look cheap. In Chart 8 and Chart 9 we show 12-month breakeven spreads for each credit tier, scaled by their percentile rank relative to history. In other words, each chart shows the percentage of time that breakeven spreads for each credit tier have been lower than they are currently. The Aa-rated breakeven spread has been lower than it is today 15% of the time (Chart 8, panel 2), while the Aaa-rated breakeven spread has been lower than it is today only 1% of the time (Chart 8, panel 1). We use the breakeven spread - the spread widening required to earn zero excess return on a 12-month horizon - because it adjusts for the changing average duration of each bond index.6 For example, the average duration of the investment grade corporate bond index has increased during the past fifteen years. This means that a given spread level today looks less attractive than when the duration risk was lower. Chart 8 shows that there is very little room for investment grade spread compression. At the 15th percentile the Aa credit tier looks most attractive, while all other credit tiers rank below the 10th percentile. In Chart 9 we see that valuations get somewhat more compelling as we move down in quality. Ba-rated breakeven spreads have been lower 19% of the time, B-rated spreads have been lower 32% of the time and Caa-rated spreads have been lower 43% of the time. Chart 8Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 9High-Yield Breakeven Spreads The results in Table 2 generally confirm that the lowest credit tiers offer the best risk-adjusted value. That table shows a measure we call Days-To-Breakeven. This is a measure of the number of days of average spread widening required for each credit tier to earn zero excess return on a 12-month horizon. It is calculated as the 12-month breakeven spread divided by each sector's historical average daily spread change. It is an attempt to measure each sector's value after adjusting for differences in both duration and spread volatility. According to this measure, Caa-rated and B-rated junk offer the best risk-adjusted value, while Baa-rated corporates offer slightly better value than Ba-rated junk bonds. Table 2 also shows the amount of option-adjusted-spread (OAS) tightening required by each credit tier (at current duration levels) to reach all-time expensive valuations. For example, the Baa-rated index can undergo another 35 bps of OAS tightening before it reaches all-time lows according to its 12-month breakeven spread. We also scale this measure by each sector's historical average daily spread change to calculate a Days-To-Minimum measure, and once again the message is the same. The Caa-rated, B-rated and Baa-rated credit tiers offer the most compelling risk-adjusted value. Table 2Risk-Adjusted Value By Credit Tier It is unfortunate, though not surprising, that low quality sectors offer the best risk-adjusted value at this late stage of the credit cycle. Most fund managers have probably already started to scale back credit risk in preparation for the next recession. This is probably a prudent strategy given that even in the lower credit tiers excess returns will not be exceptional. We forecast excess returns between 2% and 5% for the overall High-Yield index. However, we also think that investors are relatively safe taking credit risk until inflationary pressures start to mount and the Fed's reaction function becomes less supportive. If inflation recovers as we expect, then we will likely start scaling back the credit risk in our recommended portfolio sometime next year in preparation for a recession in 2019. Bottom Line: Spreads are tight across the entire credit spectrum, but risk-adjusted value is most attractive in the Caa, B and Baa credit tiers. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Speech by Janet Yellen delivered October 15, 2017. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20171015a.htm 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Why So Serious?", dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Speech by Janet Yellen delivered October 15, 2017. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20171015a.htm 4 The Underlying Inflation Gauge captures sustained movements in inflation from information contained in a broad set of price, real activity, and financial data. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/underlying-inflation-gauge 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade", dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 We calculate the breakeven spread as option-adjusted spread divided by duration. For simplicity we ignore the impact of convexity. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Feature It was an honour and privilege to welcome Professor Daniel Kahneman to our New York Conference this year. Professor Kahneman was the 2002 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, though the great irony is that he hasn't taken a single economics class in his life! That said, he did have a great informal mentor in the form of Richard Thaler who, coincidentally, has just become the 2017 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. Professor Kahneman's lifetime work demonstrates that our economic and financial decisions are often highly irrational - flying in the face of most mainstream economic models which assume fully rational behaviour. His research culminated in a school of thought called Prospect Theory, for which he ultimately won the Nobel Prize. Feature ChartBonds Become Much More Risky At Ultra-Low Yields Over lunch, Professor Kahneman summarised Prospect Theory to us. And as he spoke, the penny suddenly dropped. Prospect Theory's rich findings may have solved some of the most pressing mysteries of finance. Why do equities typically outperform bonds? Why has QE boosted equity prices so much? What happens next to financial markets? Why Do Equities Typically Outperform Bonds? Let's begin by debunking a popular myth. Many people believe that equities typically outperform bonds because equity income streams grow in line with the economy whereas bond income streams are fixed and do not grow. This reasoning is false. Any income stream can be made to generate any return depending on the price you pay for the income stream upfront. A rapidly growing income stream can still generate a deeply negative return if you overpay for it. And a fixed, or shrinking, income stream can still generate a strongly positive return if you underpay for it. It follows that equities generate a higher return than bonds simply because the financial markets typically price them to deliver this higher return. The question is: why? Prospect Theory provides an answer. One of its great insights is that we significantly overestimate the probabilities of rare but sizeable gains and losses. Indeed, this overestimation of rare events provides the entire foundation of the lottery and insurance industries. We overpay for a lottery ticket to buy the tiny possibility of a large gain, which is called positive skew. And we overpay for insurance to remove the tiny possibility of a large loss, which is called negative skew. We do this because creating the tiny possibility of immense wealth lets us dream pleasant thoughts. While removing the tiny possibility of losing our home lets us sleep soundly. The upshot from Prospect Theory is that income streams with positive skew tend to be overvalued, and so generate poor returns - like the lottery ticket. Whereas income streams with negative skew tend to be undervalued, and so generate high returns. This brings us to the first key point. Equity returns possess negative skew (Chart I-2). On rare occasions, they suffer deep losses. Because of this negative skew, it is our contention that the markets price equities to generate an excess return - a risk premium - over investments that do not have a negative skew. Chart I-2Equity Markets Have Negative Skew: "Equity Markets Walk Up The Stairs But Jump Out Of The Window" To illustrate the point, bear with us as we do some simple maths. Say an equity price could end up at 102 with probability 90%, but could plunge to 82 in a rare event with probability 10%. This makes its expected value 100 (because 102*0.9 + 82*0.1 = 100). But if, as Professor Kahneman suggests, the market overestimates the rare event probability to, say, 20%, it will underprice the equity at 98 (because 102*0.8 + 82*0.2 = 98). Clearly, this pricing will generate an excess return - a risk premium of 2% - because the correct expected value is 100. Next consider a bond price which could end up at 101 or 99 with equal probability, giving it an expected value also at 100. As it does not have negative skew, the market will just price it at 100. Observe that the equity price and bond price have exactly the same expected value of 100, but the financial markets have underpriced the equity at 98 to generate an excess return over the bond - because the equity has negative skew while the bond does not. Why Has QE Boosted Equity Prices So Much? When bond yields fall to very low levels, things get more complicated. Bond returns also exhibit extreme negative skew (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). And the reasons are obvious. At very low bond yields, the prospects for capital appreciation rapidly disappear, while the prospects for large-scale capital losses suddenly increase ( Feature Chart). Chart I-3When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low Bond Markets Have Negative Skew Too Chart I-4When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low Bond Markets Have Negative Skew Too One simple way to quantify an investment's negative skew is to pick an extended period of time - say several years - when the price has gone sideways, and then to calculate the worst 3-month loss as a multiple of the best 3-month gain.1 On this metric, equities typically show a negative skew of around 1.5. Meaning that the worst loss is about 1.5 times the size of the best gain. But for bonds, negative skew varies with the bond yield. At yields above 2.5%, bonds show no skew. Worst losses broadly equal best gains. However, when yields drop below 2%, the negative skew approaches the same level as for equities. And at yields around 1%, the negative skew can even exceed that on equities (Table 1 and Chart I-5). Table 1At Low Bond Yields, ##br##Bonds Have Extreme Negative Skew Chart I-5Bonds Become Much More Risky##br## At Ultra-Low Yields This brings us to a crucial conclusion. At very low bond yields, the equity risk premium must compress, and potentially disappear, because both bonds and equities now have the same undesirable negative skew. Is there any empirical evidence for this? The prospective equity risk premium is hard to capture as it requires an accurate forecast of the prospective excess return from equities over bonds. But the realised equity risk premium is easy to measure as it is just the annualised outperformance of equities over bonds. This shows a clear downtrend in Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. Meanwhile, in Japan where bond yields have been near zero for years, the realised equity risk premium is non-existent (Charts I-6, Chart I-7, Chart I-8, Chart I-9). Chart I-6The Equity Risk Premium ##br##Has Trended Lower In Germany... Chart I-7...And In The U.K. Chart I-8The Equity Risk Premium ##br##Has Trended Lower In The U.S. Chart I-9The Equity Risk Premium Is Non-Existent ##br##In Japan One important takeaway is that central banks, perhaps unwittingly, have driven up equity valuations exponentially. This is because QE has simultaneously compressed both the bond yield and the equity risk premium, giving equity valuations a double shot in the arm. Let's reasonably say that central bank policy depressed the 10-year bond yield by 2%. The resulting increased negative skew on bonds might then reasonably depress the 10-year equity risk premium by 2%. In combination, this would reduce the 10-year required return from equities by 4% a year for ten years. Under these assumptions, central bank policy might well have boosted equity valuations by 50%.2 What Happens Next To Financial Markets? The double shot in the arm to developed market equity valuations may have boosted them by 50%, but they are broadly in the right ballpark as long as bond yields remain ultra-low. However, the conditionality on bond yields is crucial. This is because the process that exponentially boosted equity valuations can also work viciously in reverse. To reiterate, the negative skew on bond returns starts to fade when the bond yield is at 2% and completely disappears at 3%, at which point the equity risk premium must fully re-emerge. Given the tendency of equities to exhibit negative skew and to move en masse in the developed markets, we can infer that the current valuation of equities would be in jeopardy if a mainstream bond yield broke well north of 2.5%. Whereupon the reassessment of equity valuations is likely to catalyse a correction, at the very least. Chart I-10Bond Yields Can Rise More In Europe ##br##Than In The U.S. But one important investment implication is that the subsequent flight to investment havens means that no mainstream bond yield can realistically rise beyond 3% in the foreseeable future. We can also infer that European 10-year bond yields have the potential to rise more than their equivalents in the U.S., given that European yields are much further from the 2.5%-3% 'red zone'(Chart I-10). So an excellent structural position is to underweight European government bonds versus U.S. T-bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Using log returns. 2 Because 1.04^10 = 1.48 Fractal Trading Model* This week we observe that Norwegian equities are technically overbought. A market neutral trade is to go short Norway/long Switzerland with a profit target/stop loss of 2%. We now have five open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 Fractal Trading Model The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations